No Paid Ministry

[butterfly]

More questions.

Do you believe the GA's should be like Bishops and continue to work but receive no living allowance?


If you agree with a living allowance, what do you think is a proper amount?

Perhaps our leaders should have faith that the Lord would look after their needs. This is the advice Jesus gave the disciples and apostles when they were sent out to minister.

So it sounds like the reds think the GAs should not receive a living allowance. How would the Lord look after their needs? I'm sure their are many well-to-do mormons who would help out. The billion-aire Jon Huntsman could fund the whole group.

Would that make you feel better?

When families don't have enough money to put food on the table and pay tithing,too what are they told?
They are told to get a job, pay their tithing and have more faith. If they work hard in a calling, maybe the church can temporarily help them out with some food. But they are not to become dependent on church assistance- we don't want to create a welfare state where people cannot provide for their families themselves.

However, when the GAs don't have enough money to put food on the table and do their calling, they are given a living stipend.

So what's the difference? Why does the widow in poverty have to have more faith while the GA gets a paycheck?

[Rose Garden]

I stopped going to church because I stopped believing that I needed to go to church in order to gain salvation. I eventually left the church because I wasn't participating in it anymore and realized my membership no longer meant anything. I stopped believing the church leaders were prophet, seers, and revelators because their words failed to bring me closer to the Lord or give me greater understanding of the gospel. My whole life since my conversion to the Lord has been about becoming a true disciple of Jesus Christ, being obedient to him, becoming like him, understanding things the way he understands things.

The church leaders themselves have said that they receive a stipend. I don't think they thought they were lying when they said their was no paid ministry. I think it was just the way they see things. They can believe how they want to believe. The Lord allows everyone that privilege and so should we. But to me, the question is whether or not they are acting as disciples of Jesus Christ. If they are, I want to associate with them as much as possible, learn from them, rejoice in Christ with them. But this, like so many other things, tells me that they aren't acting as disciples of Christ. At least not according to my understanding of how disciples act. And so I wish them well in their pursuits and intend to continue on my way toward Christ. May God bless them.

[Finrock]

I recently took training as a welfare specialist in the Church. We emphasize that we need to be self reliant and not become dependent on the Church. We have individuals right now who are very poor and the Church has many programs in development and which are in place right now to essentially get people off the welfare benefit and to start working, open their own business, or whatever it takes. In particular we are to counsel individuals to pay their tithing and to have faith that God will take care of them.

-Finrock

[butterfly]

I recently took training as a welfare specialist in the Church. We emphasize that we need to be self reliant and not become dependent on the Church. We have individuals right now who are very poor and the Church has many programs in development and which are in place right now to essentially get people off the welfare benefit and to start working, open their own business, or whatever it takes.

-Finrock

[shadow]

More questions.

Do you believe the GA's should be like Bishops and continue to work but receive no living allowance?


If you agree with a living allowance, what do you think is a proper amount?

Perhaps our leaders should have faith that the Lord would look after their needs. This is the advice Jesus gave the disciples and apostles when they were sent out to minister.

Perhaps this is already happening but perhaps you disagree with how the Lord accomplishes it.

[ajax]

Is it possible that they are making a distinction between clergy and travelling ministers? Maybe some special definition of clergy?

Back when I was still influenced by my cognitive dissonance I justified it by calling what they got paid a stipend or a living allowance, and therefore they technically were not getting a salary because we weren't calling it a salary. Kinda silly looking back on it now.

It's funny how we rationalize things.

I know people want to say that it's barely a benefit, but, dude, I don't known about the rest of you guys, but 120000 a year is a lot money. I'm a family of 8 and although I make above average, it doesn't stretch as far with all the mouths to feed. We are blessed, for sure, and I can't complain, but I know a good deal when I see one. There are millions of people who work as hard or harder than the GA and who genuinely have a tougher time at it and they would just be thrilled to get what the GAs get.

All I can say at the end us that its cognitive dissonance and eventually the illusion will fall away and all things will be laid bare. The Church clearly takes advantage of language and rhetorical devices in defending the "truth".

-Finrock

Where is cognitive dissonance in the scriptures?

Also, if you are traveling all the time, where do you get enough to take care of your family?

Alma 30:

32 Now Alma said unto him: Thou knowest that we do not glut ourselves upon the labors of this people; for behold I have labored even from the commencement of the reign of the judges until now, with mine own hands for my support, notwithstanding my many travels round about the land to declare the word of God unto my people.

33 And notwithstanding the many labors which I have performed in the church, I have never received so much as even one senine for my labor; neither has any of my brethren, save it were in the judgment-seat; and then we have received only according to law for our time.

34 And now, if we do not receive anything for our labors in the church, what doth it profit us to labor in the church save it were to declare the truth, that we may have rejoicings in the joy of our brethren?

35 Then why sayest thou that we preach unto this people to get gain, when thou, of thyself, knowest that we receive no gain? And now, believest thou that we deceive this people, that causes such joy in their hearts?

[eddie]

Transparency = honesty

The financials of the Church have been hidden from the members for as long as most of us have been alive.

Add to that, we are counseled that "questioning" is wrong, as is saying anything negative about the Brethren, even if it's true. If a convert is made aware of this, how far toward joining the church will they go? Or, will we come across as cultish?

" We are counseled." Are you a member? You always seem in opposition of the church and its leaders.

[Lizzy60]

Transparency = honesty

The financials of the Church have been hidden from the members for as long as most of us have been alive.

Add to that, we are counseled that "questioning" is wrong, as is saying anything negative about the Brethren, even if it's true. If a convert is made aware of this, how far toward joining the church will they go? Or, will we come across as cultish?

" We are counseled." Are you a member? You always seem in opposition of the church and its leaders.

You just proved my point.

[Finrock]

Is it possible that they are making a distinction between clergy and travelling ministers? Maybe some special definition of clergy?

Back when I was still influenced by my cognitive dissonance I justified it by calling what they got paid a stipend or a living allowance, and therefore they technically were not getting a salary because we weren't calling it a salary. Kinda silly looking back on it now.

It's funny how we rationalize things.

I know people want to say that it's barely a benefit, but, dude, I don't known about the rest of you guys, but 120000 a year is a lot money. I'm a family of 8 and although I make above average, it doesn't stretch as far with all the mouths to feed. We are blessed, for sure, and I can't complain, but I know a good deal when I see one. There are millions of people who work as hard or harder than the GA and who genuinely have a tougher time at it and they would just be thrilled to get what the GAs get.

All I can say at the end us that its cognitive dissonance and eventually the illusion will fall away and all things will be laid bare. The Church clearly takes advantage of language and rhetorical devices in defending the "truth".

-Finrock

Where is cognitive dissonance in the scriptures?

Also, if you are traveling all the time, where do you get enough to take care of your family?

Alma 30:

32 Now Alma said unto him: Thou knowest that we do not glut ourselves upon the labors of this people; for behold I have labored even from the commencement of the reign of the judges until now, with mine own hands for my support, notwithstanding my many travels round about the land to declare the word of God unto my people.

33 And notwithstanding the many labors which I have performed in the church, I have never received so much as even one senine for my labor; neither has any of my brethren, save it were in the judgment-seat; and then we have received only according to law for our time.

34 And now, if we do not receive anything for our labors in the church, what doth it profit us to labor in the church save it were to declare the truth, that we may have rejoicings in the joy of our brethren?

35 Then why sayest thou that we preach unto this people to get gain, when thou, of thyself, knowest that we receive no gain? And now, believest thou that we deceive this people, that causes such joy in their hearts?

Here is one dilemma that I see. There are individuals who have no love for the Church and who are genuinely trying to destroy it. Unfortunately you have people too who, frankly, don't give a damn about truth and error. They are the ones who are the leaders in positions and they expect to be obeyed and they enjoy their authority in the Church. They are self-righteous and they will fight against all attempts to tear down their high towers. We will have to accept that these individuals will fight against truth until the Lord returns in His glory, when they can longer deny or when they are no longer supported in their sins. I don't know who these individuals are, but I do know they exist.

So, we have dishonest people on both sides. Those outside of the Church, who are willing to lie, exaggerate, pretend, and use unethical tactics to destroy the Church, and you have those who are inside of the Church, who are willing to lie, exaggerate, pretend, and use unethical tactics to defend the Church, or rather, defend their positions of authority and power, as they suppose. Then you have those who are sincere or who don't know better or who are ignorant. They will see data that appears negative in nature and perhaps they will believe, because they have never developed critical thinking skills, that it must be anti-Mormon propaganda because it is negative in nature. Of course the reality is that error can exist and there is a place for honest and sincere questioning to occur in the Church. If you are a faithful member of the Church, who loves the Church, and want nothing but the best for the Church, but you still have questions and concerns (yes, such a person can and do exist), is there a place where you can go where you can go ask and discuss and discover answers without the fear of being accused, judged, ridiculed, mocked, put down, by the dogs and the wolves? Is ldsfreedomforum.com one of those places?

I wish it were. I wish that we all would stand and live on principle and truth, and recognize that because a person has questions, concerns, and issues relative to the Church, does it mean that they are anti-Mormon, immoral, sinful, bad, horrible, people. We ought not to treat others that way.

So, you have this wonderful scripture, which outlines, to me, and true principle. But, can I ask a question as it applies to the Church today and expect to have a sincere conversation? Can I ask a question without someone assuming that I am attacking the Church as opposed to recognizing something that seems contradictory to what principles we proclaim to believe in and because I see this contradiction, it hurts me because I love the Church so much. It's like seeing a wound in a person that I love and wanting to heal that wound and make it better.

Okay, so I've rambled a little, but my question is, in all sincerity, why doesn't this scripture that we read in the Book of Mormon, that Ajax has quoted, why does it NOT apply to the Apostles today? To me, when I read that scripture, I can't tell you how awesome I think that is. That principle that is being taught in that scripture seems so pure, so true, so good. And if it is so pure, so true, and so good, then why are we, the Church RESTORED from ANCIENT times NOT applying the ancient principles that we find in the book we have spent millions of dollars and millions of hours of resources spreading to the world and getting our membership to read? Why is the most correct book on the earth, and the book that will get us closer to Christ than any other book, why is it not the standard for how we conduct and live our lives as individual members and as a Church?

Alma was prophet and president of the Church. Where is our Alma(s) today? Why are our leaders not living like Alma? A sincere, honest, good question from a faithful LDS member, who loves the Church and who is never going to abandon it and will do anything good and just for it?

Who here is brave enough and principled enough to explore this question with me in a sincere, Christ-like way, using the principles of intellectual integrity, intellectual courage, intellectual empathy, and intellectual humility?

If you are a snarling wolf, you will be ignored by me.

-Finrock

[ajax]

Finrock:

https://www.amazon.com/Mormon-Hierarchy ... 1560852356" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You need full time managers to run it all.

[rewcox]

Another day, another issue. Whether it is polygamy, a different definition of the Godhead, blacks and the priesthood, women and the priesthood, or a living allowance, some people have heartburn over one or all.

The problem for most these people is they like the Book of Mormon and Joseph. I wonder how Joseph made along, how did he provide?

Some people have left, including some posting on this thread. Where do they go? What good things do they have to share?

I haven't seen any good things or good places people have gone.

If these leaders are greedy as Finrock supposes, they wouldn't have the Spirit like they do.

It all comes down to testimony confirmation, if you try to make sense with dissonance (by the way, does that mean murmuing) you will find yourself on the outside.

[Obrien]

More questions.

Do you believe the GA's should be like Bishops and continue to work but receive no living allowance?


If you agree with a living allowance, what do you think is a proper amount?

Perhaps our leaders should have faith that the Lord would look after their needs. This is the advice Jesus gave the disciples and apostles when they were sent out to minister.

Perhaps this is already happening but perhaps you disagree with how the Lord accomplishes it.

Is it called "faith"when you get $120k per yr, without a requirement to tithe back $12k? That's not faith, shadow. Faith is planting your seed and praying for a harvest.

[Finrock]

Another day, another issue. Whether it is polygamy, a different definition of the Godhead, blacks and the priesthood, women and the priesthood, or a living allowance, some people have heartburn over one or all.

The problem for most these people is they like the Book of Mormon and Joseph. I wonder how Joseph made along, how did he provide?

Some people have left, including some posting on this thread. Where do they go? What good things do they have to share?

I haven't seen any good things or good places people have gone.

If these leaders are greedy as Finrock supposes, they wouldn't have the Spirit like they do.

It all comes down to testimony confirmation, if you try to make sense with dissonance (by the way, does that mean murmuing) you will find yourself on the outside.

Please don't add words to my mouth. I don't suppose they are greedy. I asked a question. Where did the "greedy" part come from? It came from your mind, rewcox, not mine. Think about that.

You avoided the question. You seem like you are afraid to address the question.

Anyways, it seems that you are okay with your dissonance, because the Church is true and it can do no wrong? No matter what the evidence, all is okay and there is no purpose to asking questions? Is that what you are saying? Again, sincere questions. Would be so fun and so interesting to have someone with intellectual courage to take up the mantle and have a discussion.

Personally, I'm not interested in confirmation bias. I'm not afraid of truth, even if it's negative. We seem to view things differently. To me, being honest about things, even when they are negative, doesn't equate to disloyalty or abandonment or a lack of love. I've lived the opposite, where I was in denial, didn't want to confront the truth, or deal with it, but I've learned from experience that things are not so black and white or bipolar. We can be honest and confront things truthfully, and in love, and it doesn't have to shake our faith or cause us to leave. It just doesn't have to lead to the conclusions you are saying. Perhaps you have personal experiences in your life that have been painful where you are sensitive to this, but, you might just be projecting when the reality is much different and much more hopeful and loving.

-Finrock

[rewcox]

Another day, another issue. Whether it is polygamy, a different definition of the Godhead, blacks and the priesthood, women and the priesthood, or a living allowance, some people have heartburn over one or all.

The problem for most these people is they like the Book of Mormon and Joseph. I wonder how Joseph made along, how did he provide?

Some people have left, including some posting on this thread. Where do they go? What good things do they have to share?

I haven't seen any good things or good places people have gone.

If these leaders are greedy as Finrock supposes, they wouldn't have the Spirit like they do.

It all comes down to testimony confirmation, if you try to make sense with dissonance (by the way, does that mean murmuing) you will find yourself on the outside.

Please don't add words to my mouth. I don't suppose they are greedy. I asked a question. Where did the "greedy" part come from? It came from your mind, rewcox, not mine. Think about that.

You avoided the question. You seem like you are afraid to address the question.

Anyways, it seems that you are okay with your dissonance, because the Church is true and it can do no wrong? No matter what the evidence, all is okay and there is no purpose to asking questions? Is that what you are saying? Again, sincere questions. Would be so fun and so interesting to have someone with intellectual courage to take up the mantle and have a discussion.

Personally, I'm not interested in confirmation bias. I'm not afraid of truth, even if it's negative. We seem to view things differently. To me, being honest about things, even when they are negative, doesn't equate to disloyalty or abandonment or a lack of love. I've lived the opposite, where I was in denial, didn't want to confront the truth, or deal with it, but I've learned from experience that things are not so black and white or bipolar. We can be honest and confront things truthfully, and in love, and it doesn't have to shake our faith or cause us to leave. It just doesn't have to lead to the conclusions you are saying. Perhaps you have personal experiences in your life that have been painful where you are sensitive to this, but, you might just be projecting when the reality is much different and much more hopeful and loving.

-Finrock

These are your words: Unfortunately you have people too who, frankly, don't give a damn about truth and error. They are the ones who are the leaders in positions and they expect to be obeyed and they enjoy their authority in the Church. They are self-righteous and they will fight against all attempts to tear down their high towers. We will have to accept that these individuals will fight against truth until the Lord returns in His glory, when they can longer deny or when they are no longer supported in their sins.

I disagree with your characterization of our leaders. You have a problem.

[eddie]

Transparency = honesty

The financials of the Church have been hidden from the members for as long as most of us have been alive.

Add to that, we are counseled that "questioning" is wrong, as is saying anything negative about the Brethren, even if it's true. If a convert is made aware of this, how far toward joining the church will they go? Or, will we come across as cultish?

" We are counseled." Are you a member? You always seem in opposition of the church and its leaders.

You just proved my point.

" If our lips are closed to murmuring, then our eyes can be opened." Neal A. Maxwell

[Finrock]

Another day, another issue. Whether it is polygamy, a different definition of the Godhead, blacks and the priesthood, women and the priesthood, or a living allowance, some people have heartburn over one or all.

The problem for most these people is they like the Book of Mormon and Joseph. I wonder how Joseph made along, how did he provide?

Some people have left, including some posting on this thread. Where do they go? What good things do they have to share?

I haven't seen any good things or good places people have gone.

If these leaders are greedy as Finrock supposes, they wouldn't have the Spirit like they do.

It all comes down to testimony confirmation, if you try to make sense with dissonance (by the way, does that mean murmuing) you will find yourself on the outside.

Please don't add words to my mouth. I don't suppose they are greedy. I asked a question. Where did the "greedy" part come from? It came from your mind, rewcox, not mine. Think about that.

You avoided the question. You seem like you are afraid to address the question.

Anyways, it seems that you are okay with your dissonance, because the Church is true and it can do no wrong? No matter what the evidence, all is okay and there is no purpose to asking questions? Is that what you are saying? Again, sincere questions. Would be so fun and so interesting to have someone with intellectual courage to take up the mantle and have a discussion.

Personally, I'm not interested in confirmation bias. I'm not afraid of truth, even if it's negative. We seem to view things differently. To me, being honest about things, even when they are negative, doesn't equate to disloyalty or abandonment or a lack of love. I've lived the opposite, where I was in denial, didn't want to confront the truth, or deal with it, but I've learned from experience that things are not so black and white or bipolar. We can be honest and confront things truthfully, and in love, and it doesn't have to shake our faith or cause us to leave. It just doesn't have to lead to the conclusions you are saying. Perhaps you have personal experiences in your life that have been painful where you are sensitive to this, but, you might just be projecting when the reality is much different and much more hopeful and loving.

-Finrock

These are your words: Unfortunately you have people too who, frankly, don't give a damn about truth and error. They are the ones who are the leaders in positions and they expect to be obeyed and they enjoy their authority in the Church. They are self-righteous and they will fight against all attempts to tear down their high towers. We will have to accept that these individuals will fight against truth until the Lord returns in His glory, when they can longer deny or when they are no longer supported in their sins.

I disagree with your characterization of our leaders. You have a problem.

rewcox, I just want you to know that I don't respond to you anymore because I think I'm having a conversation with you. I recognize at this point that you aren't sincere or you are ultra sensitive and defensive or you are incapable of having a rational discussion about the Church unless the discussion is unequivocally positive towards the Church. You basically just troll posts and threads. This will be my last time mentioning this.

Thanks for giving me an opportunity to clarify. I wasn't characterizing our leaders. That sentence came out a bit awkward. If you look at that whole post, I was making a bigger point. I was saying that there are individuals both inside and outside of the Church who are willing to lie and use unethical tactics to accomplish their goals. The one's outside of the Church are doing it so that they can destroy the Church. The one's inside of the Church that are doing the lying and using unethical tactics are doing it presumably to "defend" the Church and they are usually those who are in leadership positions. These are individuals who like to be obeyed, being the decision makers, and they like the power and the authority that these positions give them. For them they justify their use of their lying and their unethical means because they are "defending" the Church but this is just a pretext when what they are really defending is their supposed authority and power. These individuals are self-righteous and they will fight against all attempts to tear down their high towers. Meaning, they aren't interested in rational, honest discourse. They understand perfectly what they are doing but they like the power and they will attempt to destroy anyone who threatens their supposed power/authority or who attempts to expose their corruption. I don't pretend to always know who these individuals are, but I know they exist and you can usually discover these individuals once you start engaging with them.

This was not a general characterization of our leaders but I can see how that might be misunderstood because my sentence was structured weird and it wasn't very clear even though what I wrote here is what I was trying to get across.

-Finrock

[rewcox]

Another day, another issue. Whether it is polygamy, a different definition of the Godhead, blacks and the priesthood, women and the priesthood, or a living allowance, some people have heartburn over one or all.

The problem for most these people is they like the Book of Mormon and Joseph. I wonder how Joseph made along, how did he provide?

Some people have left, including some posting on this thread. Where do they go? What good things do they have to share?

I haven't seen any good things or good places people have gone.

If these leaders are greedy as Finrock supposes, they wouldn't have the Spirit like they do.

It all comes down to testimony confirmation, if you try to make sense with dissonance (by the way, does that mean murmuing) you will find yourself on the outside.

Please don't add words to my mouth. I don't suppose they are greedy. I asked a question. Where did the "greedy" part come from? It came from your mind, rewcox, not mine. Think about that.

You avoided the question. You seem like you are afraid to address the question.

Anyways, it seems that you are okay with your dissonance, because the Church is true and it can do no wrong? No matter what the evidence, all is okay and there is no purpose to asking questions? Is that what you are saying? Again, sincere questions. Would be so fun and so interesting to have someone with intellectual courage to take up the mantle and have a discussion.

Personally, I'm not interested in confirmation bias. I'm not afraid of truth, even if it's negative. We seem to view things differently. To me, being honest about things, even when they are negative, doesn't equate to disloyalty or abandonment or a lack of love. I've lived the opposite, where I was in denial, didn't want to confront the truth, or deal with it, but I've learned from experience that things are not so black and white or bipolar. We can be honest and confront things truthfully, and in love, and it doesn't have to shake our faith or cause us to leave. It just doesn't have to lead to the conclusions you are saying. Perhaps you have personal experiences in your life that have been painful where you are sensitive to this, but, you might just be projecting when the reality is much different and much more hopeful and loving.

-Finrock

These are your words: Unfortunately you have people too who, frankly, don't give a damn about truth and error. They are the ones who are the leaders in positions and they expect to be obeyed and they enjoy their authority in the Church. They are self-righteous and they will fight against all attempts to tear down their high towers. We will have to accept that these individuals will fight against truth until the Lord returns in His glory, when they can longer deny or when they are no longer supported in their sins.

I disagree with your characterization of our leaders. You have a problem.

rewcox, I just want you to know that I don't respond to you anymore because I think I'm having a conversation with you. I recognize at this point that you aren't sincere or you are ultra sensitive and defensive or you are incapable of having a rational discussion about the Church unless the discussion is unequivocally positive towards the Church. You basically just troll posts and threads. This will be my last time mentioning this.

Thanks for giving me an opportunity to clarify. I wasn't characterizing our leaders. That sentence came out a bit awkward. If you look at that whole post, I was making a bigger point. I was saying that there are individuals both inside and outside of the Church who are willing to lie and use unethical tactics to accomplish their goals. The one's outside of the Church are doing it so that they can destroy the Church. The one's inside of the Church that are doing the lying and using unethical tactics to "defend" the Church but really those who are using these tactics are usually those who are in leadership positions and who like the power the authority that these positions give them and they expect to be obeyed, and so in reality they are defending their supposed authority and power. These individuals are self-righteous and they will fight against all attempts to tear down their high towers. Meaning, they aren't interested in rational, honest discourse. They understand perfectly what they are doing but they like the power. I don't know who these individuals are, but I know they exist.

This was not a general characterization of our leaders but I can see how that might be misunderstood because my sentence was structured weird and it wasn't very clear even though that is what I was thinking.

-Finrock

Huh?

[Lizzy60]

Transparency = honesty

The financials of the Church have been hidden from the members for as long as most of us have been alive.

Add to that, we are counseled that "questioning" is wrong, as is saying anything negative about the Brethren, even if it's true. If a convert is made aware of this, how far toward joining the church will they go? Or, will we come across as cultish?

" We are counseled." Are you a member? You always seem in opposition of the church and its leaders.

You just proved my point.

" If our lips are closed to murmuring, then our eyes can be opened." Neal A. Maxwell

Eddie,
I made two statements in my original post that are common knowledge. I'm guessing you agree with them, since you didn't tell me I was mistaken. Then I asked two questions. You must not want to discuss either of those questions, as you have not addressed them. Instead, you have only accused me of being in opposition, and murmuring. You are attacking me personally, instead of engaging in a discussion on the two facts stated, and the two questions I asked.
I call ad hominem on you. Please don't do this to me again. It's pointless.

I've said it elsewhere, but to clarify, I am a member, I love the gospel of Christ, I have read the Book of Mormon numerous times, and I have an unshakeable testimony of Christ, His Atonement, Joseph Smith, the Restoration, and the Scriptures.
I also have close family members who have lost their faith in Christ and the gospel, because they discovered the church had misled them, and they were not able to separate the Church and the Gospel. Therefore I have a vested interest in our leaders being more forthright, and less secretive. That's not murmuring, that's just my worldview.

[Finrock]

Please don't add words to my mouth. I don't suppose they are greedy. I asked a question. Where did the "greedy" part come from? It came from your mind, rewcox, not mine. Think about that.

You avoided the question. You seem like you are afraid to address the question.

Anyways, it seems that you are okay with your dissonance, because the Church is true and it can do no wrong? No matter what the evidence, all is okay and there is no purpose to asking questions? Is that what you are saying? Again, sincere questions. Would be so fun and so interesting to have someone with intellectual courage to take up the mantle and have a discussion.

Personally, I'm not interested in confirmation bias. I'm not afraid of truth, even if it's negative. We seem to view things differently. To me, being honest about things, even when they are negative, doesn't equate to disloyalty or abandonment or a lack of love. I've lived the opposite, where I was in denial, didn't want to confront the truth, or deal with it, but I've learned from experience that things are not so black and white or bipolar. We can be honest and confront things truthfully, and in love, and it doesn't have to shake our faith or cause us to leave. It just doesn't have to lead to the conclusions you are saying. Perhaps you have personal experiences in your life that have been painful where you are sensitive to this, but, you might just be projecting when the reality is much different and much more hopeful and loving.

-Finrock

These are your words: Unfortunately you have people too who, frankly, don't give a damn about truth and error. They are the ones who are the leaders in positions and they expect to be obeyed and they enjoy their authority in the Church. They are self-righteous and they will fight against all attempts to tear down their high towers. We will have to accept that these individuals will fight against truth until the Lord returns in His glory, when they can longer deny or when they are no longer supported in their sins.

I disagree with your characterization of our leaders. You have a problem.

rewcox, I just want you to know that I don't respond to you anymore because I think I'm having a conversation with you. I recognize at this point that you aren't sincere or you are ultra sensitive and defensive or you are incapable of having a rational discussion about the Church unless the discussion is unequivocally positive towards the Church. You basically just troll posts and threads. This will be my last time mentioning this.

Thanks for giving me an opportunity to clarify. I wasn't characterizing our leaders. That sentence came out a bit awkward. If you look at that whole post, I was making a bigger point. I was saying that there are individuals both inside and outside of the Church who are willing to lie and use unethical tactics to accomplish their goals. The one's outside of the Church are doing it so that they can destroy the Church. The one's inside of the Church that are doing the lying and using unethical tactics to "defend" the Church but really those who are using these tactics are usually those who are in leadership positions and who like the power the authority that these positions give them and they expect to be obeyed, and so in reality they are defending their supposed authority and power. These individuals are self-righteous and they will fight against all attempts to tear down their high towers. Meaning, they aren't interested in rational, honest discourse. They understand perfectly what they are doing but they like the power. I don't know who these individuals are, but I know they exist.

This was not a general characterization of our leaders but I can see how that might be misunderstood because my sentence was structured weird and it wasn't very clear even though that is what I was thinking.

-Finrock

Huh?

Thanks for giving me another opportunity to clarify. My clarification needed clarification. I edited the paragraph and it should make more sense now.

:))

-Finrock

[Amonhi]

The fact that this stipend exists has not been hidden. As President Hinckley noted in General Conference:
Merchandising interests are an outgrowth of the cooperative movement which existed among our people in pioneer times. The Church has maintained certain real estate holdings, particularly those contiguous to Temple Square, to help preserve the beauty and the integrity of the core of the city. All of these commercial properties are tax-paying entities.
I repeat, the combined income from all of these business interests is relatively small and would not keep the work going for longer than a very brief period.
I should like to add, parenthetically for your information, that the living allowances given the General Authorities, which are very modest in comparison with executive compensation in industry and the professions, come from this business income and not from the tithing of the people.

How do you know the income from the businesses is small? Doesn't the church own the largest ranch in the country among other substancial investments?

I thought that GA's made $120k a year. That's awfully close to the top 5%. Sounds like a good way to make a living if you ask me. Who would be willing to sacrifice their job and lifestyle to be a GA?


Amonhi

[Amonhi]

More questions.

Do you believe the GA's should be like Bishops and continue to work but receive no living allowance?


If you agree with a living allowance, what do you think is a proper amount?

You ask fair questions. The apostles under Christ left tear work and became traveling ministers. The we're supported by the members. Housed and fed as they went.

Without purse or script.

Purse means money

Scripts means manuals, handbooks or prepared lessons. Speak by the spirit.

Do we expect our leaders and our church to function like it did under Christ? Then the leaders should be supported by the members.

In the book of Mormon, it was considered priestcraft to be supported by the church and the leaders of the church had to "labor with their own hands" for their livelihood. They said this many times, especially when they were accused of getting wealthy off the church. Our modern brethren wouldn't be able to make the same claims as the ancient book of Mormon leaders.

But, all in all, I read the scriptures and it is clear in the D&C that the Lord intends for full time clergy to be paid whether they are Bishops Stake Presidents or GA's.

How much should they be paid? And how much should they be reimbursed?

I don't know the difference between a stipend and a salary. Does anyone know?

Peace,
Amonhi

[Mark]

Serious question: In light of the recent GA salary disclosures, how does the church justify the following statements?

Inasmuch as there is no paid ministry in the Church, service opportunities are available to men, women, and children of all ages."- Elder Franklin D. Richards

"In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints there is no paid ministry, no professional clergy, as is common in other churches." -Elder Boyd K. Packer

"Over the years of my membership in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I have greatly appreciated the opportunities for service, for there is no paid ministry." -Elder Derek A. Cuthbert

"I explained also that our Church has no paid ministry and indicated that these were two reasons why we were able to build the buildings then under way, including the beautiful temple at Freiberg." -Elder Thomas S. Monson

"Because there is no paid ministry, almost every churchgoer has a responsibility." Mormon Newsroom

We recognize how busy you are. Without a paid professional ministry, the responsibility for administering the Church depends on you consecrated members. Quinton Cook April 2012

We have no professionally trained and salaried clergy in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Dallin Oaks April 2012

This is like a broken record. Somebody like Investigator who has a history of leveling criticism of the church and its leadership in about every thread they jump in on starts a thread like this trying to implicate past leaders for not being truthful or misrepresenting the way things work in the church or whatever. Investigator is not being honest about his intent here. He or she does not want to understand how things really work. Im sure investigator does not have a clue as to what occurs with each general authority when it comes to financial assistance or stipends. They just presuppose that these men are taking advantage of the financial benefits they may or may not receive. He/she doesnt have a clue of each ones financial situation or what they might do with any of the business income they receive off of church for profit businesses. Some may donate it all to the missionary or welfare funds but that possibility is never explored. Why think the best of these honorable men who serve the Lord in any capacity asked? There intent is purely to think the worst so as to harm and damage reputations of those who are not here to defend themselves from attacks against their characters. Priestcraft is the unspoken yet implied accusation. Then the same old posters that love to chime in with potentially harmful critisisms show up to throw more innuendos and barbs at the church or the leaders creating doubt that they are playing it straight or are just living like King Noahs priests off everybodies tithing money. There is always an assumption of guilt and wrong doing on their part. Frankly it is just getting old on an LDS oriented forum. Why not create some positive energy here by looking for some good?

[Amonhi]

D&C 84: 54 And your minds in times past have been darkened because of unbelief, and because you have treated lightly the things you have received—

55 Which vanity and unbelief have brought the whole church under condemnation.

56 And this condemnation resteth upon the children of Zion, even all.

57 And they shall remain under this condemnation until they repent and remember the new covenant, even the Book of Mormon and the former commandments which I have given them, not only to say, but to do according to that which I have written—

I guess I have a problem with it. In the book of Alma, there is a story of the man named Nehor. Nehor preaches that leaders of the church should be popular and should not labor for their own support. They should be supported by the labors of those they minister to. Alma declares this to be priestcrafts and says, if it is allowed to continue, it would lead to the total destruction of the people.

Alma teaches the correct way is for those who minister and teach should labor for their own support and no man should esteem himself greater than those who are taught. After they gathered to worship, they who are taught and the teachers both should return to their labors.

So it pains me to see that our church operates under the principles taught by Nehor and not by what Alma taught. Obviously, the leaders of the church have made them selves popular. They esteem themselves to be greater then everyone else and take money for teaching.

Concerning this record the Prophet Joseph Smith said: “I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.”

Notice the quote says, abiding by it's precepts. Too bad we don't abide by them. We just give lip service to a scripture here and a scripture there.

Your point was made. I think we all feel a struggle to resolve this issue in our own minds.

Peace,
Amonhi

[Amonhi]

More questions.

Do you believe the GA's should be like Bishops and continue to work but receive no living allowance?


If you agree with a living allowance, what do you think is a proper amount?

Perhaps our leaders should have faith that the Lord would look after their needs. This is the advice Jesus gave the disciples and apostles when they were sent out to minister.

So it sounds like the reds think the GAs should not receive a living allowance. How would the Lord look after their needs? I'm sure their are many well-to-do mormons who would help out. The billion-aire Jon Huntsman could fund the whole group.

Would that make you feel better?

You are avoiding the issue. How did the ancient Apostles do it? How do they compare to the modern day Apostles? Also, why say there is NO paid ministry, when clearly there is? Further, why not just admit that there is a paid ministry? Why the sophistry and semantics?
-Finrock

Maybe they don't consider themselves as ministers of Christ? If they aren't ministering Christ, then the there is no paid ministry. Semantics?


Amonhi

[Amonhi]

More questions.

Do you believe the GA's should be like Bishops and continue to work but receive no living allowance?


If you agree with a living allowance, what do you think is a proper amount?

Perhaps our leaders should have faith that the Lord would look after their needs. This is the advice Jesus gave the disciples and apostles when they were sent out to minister.

Perhaps this is already happening but perhaps you disagree with how the Lord accomplishes it.

Shadow, this sounded funny. I don't think I get you meaning? It sounded like they need to have faith that the church will cut their check every two weeks like a good employer. What did you really mean?

Thanks,
Amonhi